Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 257±263, 2006
Printed in Great Britain.
0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00
# 2006 TEMPUS Publications.
Assessing Engineering Internship Efficacy:
Industry's Perception of Student
Performance*
SUSAN HAAG
Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287, USA.
E-mail: shaag@asu.edu
ERIC GUILBEAU and WHITNEY GOBLE
Harrington Department of Bioengineering, Arizona State University
Ira A Fulton School of Engineering administrators and faculty have integrated curricular materials
and strategies to ensure that students possess the competencies that are embedded in the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) criteria. One measure to assess
student performance is to gather feedback from industry managers who employ students as interns
while they are still enrolled in school. The current study examined internship program efficacy in
the Ira A Fulton School of Engineering. Program success was determined by the following three
criteria: 1) student performance outcomes based on ABET criteria, 2) number of student
participants and industry partners, and 3) industry-university collaboration. A primary objective
of this study was to develop an assessment instrument and process that would capture alignment
between ABET criteria and student performance in internships. This paper will outline critical
inherent variables that contribute to internship program impact and will describe methods to enable
assessment alignment between program outcomes and accreditation criteria. Industry feedback
reveals that both undergraduate and graduate students possess the majority of skills defined in the
EC2000 a±k competencies. Significant differences between undergraduate and graduate students
were not evident. This is an important finding particularly in terms of accreditation criteria.
Faculty who teach undergraduate higher-level courses may also teach graduate courses. Thus, it is
likely that instructors who have been implementing methods to accomplish school objectives and
outcomes in their undergraduate courses are also integrating those same strategies into their
graduate courses. The formative assessment has determined program strengths and opportunities
for improvement and thus will define further practices and processes to ensure future success.
INTRODUCTION
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
RESEARCHERS have studied the effect of internships and cooperative education experiences in
engineering, and found that they positively
affected students in three dimensions [1]: GPA,
duration of time in school, and starting salary.
Several other studies [2, 3] revealed more positive
outcomes for interns in terms of academic standing
and higher cumulative grade point averages than
for non-experienced engineering majors. In addition, internship experiences decrease job search
time and increase the probability of promotion
and advancement after hire [4]. Industry partnerships and practical work experience for both
faculty and students can also benefit the university
[5] in a changing technological economy [6, 7].
Industry±university collaboration enables School
administrators to anticipate shifts in industry
trends and also to gather critical industry feedback
on student performance and program impact in
order to adjust the curriculum and programs
accordingly.
The Ira A. Fulton School administrators and
faculty have made every attempt to ensure that
graduates possess the qualities that are embedded
in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) criteria. As faculty are developing methodology for assessing performance on
the ABET outcomes [8], a School team began
creating an instrument to assess internship performance based upon the same criteria. ABET has
increased the thrust for faculty to quantitatively
assess these competencies, which has promoted
interest in developing and identifying relevant
assessment instruments [9]. However, only a handful of tools and methods are available [10]. The
study started with the assumption that EC2000
requires all engineering programs to demonstrate
that their senior graduates meet the requirements
listed in Criteria 3 (a±k). After a thorough search
of the literature, it was evident that few universities
are evaluating their engineering internship
programs with ABET criteria. One of our objectives was to align the internship assessment with
the ABET student performance outcomes. Thus,
* Accepted 29 September 2005.
257
258
S. Haag et al.
many of the survey questions reflected these competencies. The evaluation and EIP team attempted
to answer the following research questions:
. What is industry's perception of Fulton's undergraduate and graduate interns in terms of ABET
criteria?
. Do internships foster university±industry collaboration?
. Why is industry employing university interns?
THE FULTON ENGINEERING INTERNSHIP
PROGRAMS
The study investigated outcomes from two
diverse internship programs within the School of
Engineering, the Engineering Internship Program
(EIP) and the Harrington Department of Bioengineering Internship Program. The EIP serves all
engineering students and the Harrington Department targets bioengineering students and biomedical and biotechnology industries. Although
the two programs typically serve different types
of students and industry members, their objectives
are similar. The common features they share
include the following:
. to characterize and reflect the objectives and
goals of the School (accreditation criteria);
. to serve both undergraduate and graduate students;
. to promote self-sufficiency and industry-university collaboration.
The research goal was to align program assessment
with School objectives and outcomes. Thus we
evaluated the effectiveness of both programs
using the same criteria.
The Engineering Internship Program (EIP)
The Engineering Internship Program (EIP) at
Arizona State University's Ira A. Fulton School of
Engineering was initially created by the Associate
Dean of Student Affairs in 1986 to promote
students' real-world industry placement and to
acquire much needed scholarship money to attract
and retain top transfer students and incoming
freshman. The EIP is unique among internship
programs because it not only places students with
industry, but also has an imperative to establish
and maintain industry partnerships, and cultivate
industry support for the Dean's Industry Scholarship Fund. Over the years, the EIP has grown to
become a revenue stream for the college of $1.1
million in 2004, with all income stemming from
industry sponsors.
The nourishment of industry relations lies at the
crux of the EIP's existence, since industry supports
the program entirely. The EIP director is responsible for developing, implementing and promoting
programs for EIP Internships by establishing and
maintaining relevant industry partnerships with
the Fulton School of Engineering. In order to
engage industry in the EIP, the Director must
identify the salient value of the program to diverse
industry organizations, and encourage industry
collaboration and financial participation in various scholarship funds. She is also responsible for
the planning, development and management of the
EIP services and activities for students and corporate sponsors by monitoring internships, and
handling negotiations resolving disputes, either
legal or internal. The director advises students
regarding the issues that impact student success
and retention in industry internships, and speaks
to student, industry, and faculty groups to
promote awareness of the EIP.
The EIPs unique model of collecting scholarship
money in conjunction with internships has the
flexibility to incorporate other departments and
centers in need of scholarship funding for their
students. Recently, the EIP has established scholarship funding for other programs in the Fulton
school. For example, with an Intel fellowship
created under the auspices of the Associate Dean
of Research, scholarship money was allocated to
the Center for Engineering Diversity and Retention, which works to promote the interests of
traditionally unrepresented populations in engineering. Other programs have also received scholarship money when their students were placed at
industry through the EIP, such as Connection One
and the Computational Biosciences department.
Harrington Department of Bioengineering
Internship Program
The Harrington Department of Bioengineering
Internship Program includes programs in industry,
clinical and shadow experiences, research, and
prosthetic and orthotics, among others. The
department's Industrial Internship Program is
without question the most successful and flourishing component of the program as a whole. Funded
by the Whitaker Foundation from 1996 to 2002,
the Industrial Internship Program was established
to aid in the preparation of students for biomedical
engineering careers in the medical device and
biotechnology industries and to familiarize companies with the talents and abilities of students earning a bioengineering degree. Since its start, the
Industrial Internship Program has developed into
a unique and successful program. Some of the
unique qualities of the program are discussed in
detail below.
The department employs a full-time internship
program coordinator who serves as a point of
contact for students, faculty and industry. She
works actively to make contacts through faculty,
department alumni, and career fairs. She also aids
students with the fundamental skills of reÂsumeÂ
writing and job searching, co-instructs the
program's corresponding internship seminar, and
occasionally facilitates research collaborations by
connecting faculty with interested companies. In
addition to the internship coordinator, a department faculty member, the department chair, and a
Assessing Engineering Internship Efficacy: Industry's Perception of Student Performance
business manager provide faculty and business
support to the program.
Especially unique is the Industrial Internship
Program's financial structure since the end of
Whitaker funding in 2002. To join the Harrington
Department of Bioengineering Industrial Internship Program, companies (both local and national)
pay semesterly or yearly membership fees, depending on their specific needs. By joining the program,
companies receive reÂsumeÂs each summer, fall, and
spring of both qualified undergraduate (junior and
seniors only) and graduate student candidates. In
addition, any student selected for an internship is
hired as a university student employee and paid by
the university. Companies are invoiced at the end
of each semester or internship session for the
amount paid (along with some small processing
fees). Such fees and payments are all tax deductible
and save each company a great deal of time and
money, as they fully avoid the cost of advertising
and marketing for interns.
Each student selected for an internship opportunity in any facet of the program is required to
enroll in the BME 484/584 Internship Seminar in
an effort to maintain contact with the interns, and
to ensure that internships are both an educational
and professional experience. During the course of
the seminar, each industrial intern completes
numerous presentations on the company for
which they are interning, an internship portfolio,
and a poster of their internship experience to be
presented at the department's annual Biomedical
Engineering Day (BME Day). Each year the
department hosts the BME Day to recruit high
school students, which includes guest speakers, lab
tours, breakfast and lunch. During the poster
session, both capstone (senior design) students
and the interns present their work through professional posters and demonstrations. Many industry
program members attend the afternoon poster
session, as well as faculty and department graduate
students.
METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The process
This section highlights measurements and analysis by the Director of Assessment and Evaluation.
Program efficacy was determined by the following
criteria:
. student performance outcomes based on ABET
criteria;
. number of student participants and industry
partners; and
. industry-university collaboration.
To accomplish the assessment objectives the
following data sources were employed: student
and industry data computed over the past year
and survey responses to determine industry satisfaction and industry-university collaboration.
259
Data were systematically recorded to ensure
reliability.
A comprehensive survey was developed by the
Ira A. Fulton School that industry used to evaluate
the performance of interns and industry±university
collaboration. Furthermore, industry partners
were asked if an opportunity occurred, would
they hire the intern. The evaluation team pilot
tested the survey to ascertain wording clarity,
appropriateness, and validity of the instrument.
The team worked with the Associate Dean of
Academic Affairs, department chairs, and the
Director of Strategic Planning to refine the text,
determine statistical appropriateness, and ensure
alignment with ABET criteria and School objectives, an overall goal of the project.
To facilitate the School's effort to improve
engineering students' competencies, in 1999 a
committee was charged to develop a survey that
would be administered to engineering students
every year, starting in the year 2000. It was our
goal to align the internship survey with the School
survey to assess industry's perception of student
performance. In this way, the project collected
industry feedback: 1) to determine internship efficacy and 2) to examine the correlation between
school objectives and student performance
outcomes. Thus, if survey results indicated an
opportunity for improvement in the curriculum,
the School would be able to make changes, thus,
facilitating the continuous improvement loop. It is
valuable to gain industry's perception of enginering students with regards to the new (ABET)
criteria during their enrollment. By investigating
these issues we are better able to identify and focus
on areas of improvement for all students.
ABET criteria that were embedded in the survey
include:
. math, engineering, and technical competence;
. design and product realization; communication
skills;
. awareness of professionalism and ethics;
. life-long learning;
. teaming competence;
. knowledge of societal, political, and community
issues.
Survey sections were dedicated to these student
outcomes as the School has made a significant
effort to infuse these criteria into curricular materials, classroom activities, and program objectives.
Surveys were delivered by electronic mail and
were also available in an online format whereby
industry members could submit their results to the
Assessment and Evaluation Office directly to
ensure confidentiality and anonimity. Of the 52
industry managers contacted, 40 responded to the
survey, yielding a 77% response rate. Departments
who continually provide internships for the EIP
are as follows: computer systems engineering,
electrical engineering, industrial engineering, aerospace, bioengineering, and civil engineering.
260
S. Haag et al.
The survey used a 5-point Likert scale employing the following range: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly
Agree. Data were examined for general trends and
by department and intern type (e.g., graduate or
undergraduate). Non-parametric statistics were
used since the distribution was presented in ordinal
form. Non-parametric statistics are generally more
conservative than statistics that assume normality.
A conservative approach for analyzing the data
was taken. Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests
were conducted on confidence measures and statements to determine student differences. Non-parametric tests are used when the distributions are
such that both or all are presented in ordinal form
and when populations from which the samples
were selected are known to lack normality.
productive month. In 2004, the EIP employed 26
students in the spring, 40 students in the summer,
and 35 in the fall. About 22 industry partners
employ EIP interns including companies such as
Dell, Intel, Honeywell, Humana, Motorola,
Pearson Digital Learning, Phillips and TGEN.
The Harrington Department of Bioengineering
typically places 26 students per year, which also
includes the summer months. Since 1996, 228
internships have been established through the
department's Industrial Internship Program. This
number does not include clinical, prosthetic and
orthotics internships. Approximately 39 companies have participated in the industrial portion of
the program. Currently, the three largest program
supporters and most active members are CR Bard
(Bard Peripheral Vascular), OrthoLogic, and
Alliance Medical Corporation.
EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Industry overall satisfaction
Results reveal that industry partners participating in engineering internship programs are extremely satisfied with the industry±university
collaboration as indicated by their agreement
with that survey item (97% agreed or strongly
agreed). In addition, industry members indicated
that they are satisfied with the academic preparation (92%) and performance (89.7%) of the intern.
An industry excerpt further supports this assertion, `I am very satisfied with interns and their
performance. A win/win environment is established and maintained from both parties. This
leads to a very successful program.' The majority
of respondents stated that they would hire the
intern if they had an opening in their department
(97.5%). One industry respondent stated the
following, `I have been very satisfied with the
interns I have worked with and two of them are
now on-board with the company following
graduation.' No statistically significant differences
were evident between the two groups, which indicated that student performance is consistent for
engineering undergraduate and graduates. See
Table 1.
The University±Industry collaborative survey
project was successful in capturing internship
program efficacy concerning all of the stated
criteria and more specifically assessing the majority of the ABET a±k competencies. In general, the
survey results highlighted the fact that industry
members are extremely satisfied with the internship program, the interns, and the industry±
university collaboration that it fosters. Corporations have indicated that they are satisfied with the
academic preparation and the overall performance
of the engineering interns. The majority of industry
members stated that the `Scholarship portion of
the fee schedule enhances Industry±University
collaboration' a thrust of the Ira A. Fulton
School and the university.
Assessment revealed that students are perceived
as having the majority of the skills and abilities
listed in ABET Criteria 3 (a±k). Significant differences between undergraduate and graduate
students were not evident. This is an important
finding particularly in terms of ABET criteria.
Faculty who teach undergraduate higher-level
courses may also teach graduate courses. Thus, it
is likely that those instructors who have been
implementing methods to accomplish school
objectives and ABET a±k criteria in their undergraduate courses are also integrating those same
strategies into their graduate courses. Internship
programs appear to be important in today's educational experience, as indicated in the following
excerpt: `Internships are a very critical part of
today's educational process. As an employer I
would be reluctant to hire a student fresh out of
school without any work experience.' Another
commented: `Overall, these are valuable programs
which serve many university±industry needs.'
Regarding student and industry participants, the
EIP increased its student participant number from
92 in 2003 to 101 in 2004. One of the strengths of
the program is that it employs students for 12
months of the year with summer being a very
ABET Criteria 3 a±k Alignment
As mentioned above, our objective was to align
internship assessment with ABET criteria and
many of the survey questions reflected those
competencies. Data analysis suggested that six of
the ABET criteria a±k are strengths of the School
reflected in internship performance. More specifically, industry partners perceived that interns were
equipped with a strong foundation in mathematics
and basic engineering; designed systems, devices,
and components as needed; were committed to
professional and ethical responsibility; worked
effectively in teams; communicated effectively;
and were life-long learners. Engineering knowledge, conceptualization, and potential are
revealed in the following excerpt, `The intern was
far ahead of the field and we are still using his
innovations. When he left, my V.P. and I used his
Assessing Engineering Internship Efficacy: Industry's Perception of Student Performance
261
Table 1. Internship overall satisfaction: industry±university collaboration
Survey item
I am satisfied with the industry-university collaboration
I am satisfied with the academic preparation of the intern
I am satisfied with the performance of the intern
If there was an opening, would you hire this intern?
ideas and concepts and we are still working on
them today.'
Data reveal that competencies a, c, d, f, g, and i
received strong responses. An industry participant
offered the following comment: `The interns I have
worked with have very good basic software engineering skills.' Another corporate manager
discussed several competencies: `Interns have
been highly motivated and professional and
would be a great addition to any group. Academic
preparation was excellent. Overall they have been
highly qualified.' One respondent supported the
Bioengineering interns and their program: `The
ASU Bioengineering program is definitely preparing students to be productive in industry. They are
being taught real-life problems, not just theory. I
was particularly impressed with the poster session
at BME Day because the posters were on such a
profession level.'
Industry members indicated that students were
aware of societal, political, and community issues;
however this response was not as strong as the
other ABET competencies. Similarly, ABET h
criteria (understanding the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal context) received
lower responses. Since criteria such as ABET f, g,
h, i, and j are difficult to ascertain, particularly if
you ask students to assess themselves, industry
feedback is critical. Thus, the Ira A. Fulton
School will be able to document student performance outcomes based upon the input of industry
managers while students are out working in their
field. See Table 2.
Communications skills
Critical attention was paid to engineering communication skills as they have been identified as a
Intern type
Mean
Standard
deviation
Undergraduate
Graduate
Undergraduate
Graduate
Undergraduate
Graduate
Undergraduate
Graduate
4.71
4.59
4.41
4.41
4.65
4.38
4.76
4.77
0.470
0.590
0.618
0.666
0.606
0.740
0.437
0.528
weakness in the engineering student population
[11]. Prior research revealed that although industry
members viewed communication skills as `Most
important,' they felt that engineering students were
`less prepared' in that area [12]. As part of the
current research process, the survey team developed four additional questions dedicated to the
diverse areas in communication. It was evident
that interns were successful in the areas of preparing appropriate computer-based and graphical
materials and in communicating effectively across
the technical boundaries of engineering with transfer to work settings. This finding is noteworthy as
it reveals that engineering students are able to
apply and communicate technical information in
a work context. Although two of the communication survey items received lower response
ratings, they were still above average. The lower
items included the ability to plan, prepare, write,
and assess written and oral reports. See Table 3.
Reasons for selecting university interns
Industry participants were asked to indicate how
they heard about the Ira A. Fulton School internship programs. The majority (54%) stated that they
were aware of the programs because their
company has hired Fulton interns. Additionally
over one third indicated that they heard about the
program through another company manager and
through communication with School faculty.
Industry members indicated reasons why they
were interested in employing interns. Although
they identified cost effectiveness, the primary
reason was the `quality of the Ira A Fulton
School interns' (96%). Other reasons mentioned
were the mentoring aspect and that interns could
fill part-time opportunities. See Table 4.
Table 2. Internship ABET Alignment: ABET Criteria, survey results
ABET competency used
ABET a: Interns were equipped with a strong foundation in mathematics and basic engineering
ABET c: Interns were able to design systems, devices, and components as needed
ABET f: Interns maintained a sense of commitment to professionalism and ethical responsibility
ABET d: Interns work effectively in teams and in multidisciplinary environments
ABET g: Interns were able to communicate effectively in oral, written, computer-based, and
graphical forms
ABET h: Interns are aware of and sensitive to social and political issues pertinent to their discipline
ABET i: Interns had an understanding of and interest in continued life long learning of technologies
ABET j: Interns were aware of societal, political, and community issues
Mean
Standard
deviation
4.23
4.12
4.33
4.28
4.02
0.677
0.857
0.797
0.716
0.698
3.81
4.13
3.79
0.811
0.875
0.687
262
S. Haag et al.
Table 3. Intern competency in communication skills
Survey item
Interns appropriately plan, prepare, write and assess written reports
Interns appropriately plan, prepare, deliver and assess formal and informal oral presentations
Interns communicate effectively across the technical boundaries of engineering with transfer into
work settings
Interns prepare appropriate computer-based and graphical materials
Table 4. Reasons for selecting interns
Survey item
Industry
response
(%)
Standard
deviation
96
88
95
82
75
82
0.196
0.332
0.218
0.405
0.463
0.405
Quality of interns
Mentoring aspect
Cost effectiveness
Part time opportunities available
Lower visible headcount
Intern had prior work experience
CONCLUSIONS
The study has revealed overall satisfaction with
engineering internship programs and their student
participants. The investigation showed the
School's success in concert with internship efficacy
as revealed by strong responses to ABET a±k
criteria. More specifically, both graduate and
undergraduates were equipped with a foundation
in mathematics and basic engineering, worked
effectively in teams, were professional, designed
systems, devices, and components as needed, and
continued in life-long learning technologies.
However, opportunities for improvement emerged.
Students were less aware of societal and community issues and were perceived as less skilled in
Mean
Standard
deviation
3.95
3.83
4.15
0.783
0.737
0.670
4.36
0.537
planning, preparing, writing reports and in
presenting the material. These areas will be further
examined this year during accreditation and
curricular committee meetings.
To increase the value of the survey research
effort, the team held engineering internship
programs to the same standards as other engineering programs and aligned their student outcomes
and industry satisfaction with ABET criteria. The
evaluation team organized and disseminated the
materials and findings to other constituencies in
the School. Department chairs whose students
regularly participate in internship programs will
integrate these data into their overall assessment
plan and will embed it in their next ABET and
University Reports. One administrator stated that
the industry data will be very useful in the ABET
accreditation requirements to assess outcomes and
objectives. Deans, department chairs, and faculty
will be able to examine the current data to drive
future processes and practices in the Ira A. Fulton
School to ensure continuing success.
AcknowledgementÐThe authors and the Ira A. Fulton School
of Engineering recognize and appreciate the efforts of industry
participants, associate deans, faculty, and department chairs for
their participation in this study. We would like to also acknowledge Dr. Norma Hubele, the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering Director of Strategic Initiatives, for her valuable
contributions.
REFERENCES
1. B. Blair, M. Millea and J. Hammer, The impact of cooperative education on academic
performance and compensation of engineering majors, J. Eng. Educ., 93(4), Oct. 2004, pp. 333±338.
2. P. D. Gardner, D. Nixon and Motschenbacker, Starting salary outcomes of cooperative education
graduates, J. Cooperative Education, 27(3), 1992, pp. 16±26.
3. R. Lindenmayer, A comparison study of the academic progress of the cooperative and the fouryear student, J. Cooperative Education, 3(2), 1967, pp. 8±18.
4. W. Wessels and G. Pumphrey, The effects of cooperative education on job search time, quality of
job placement and advancement, J. Cooperative Education, 31(1), 1996, pp. 42±52.
5. E. Geisler and A. H. Rubenstein, University-industry relations: a review of major issues, in
Cooperative Research and Development: The University Government Relationship, A. N. Link and
G. Tassey (eds), Kluwer, Academic Publishers, Boston, MA (1989).
6. B. D. Jones and A. Vedlitz, Higher education policies and economic growth in the American states,
Economic Development Quarterly, 2(1), 1998, pp. 78±87.
7. D. Parnell, Dateline 2000: The New Higher Education Agenda, Community College Press,
Washington, DC (1990).
8. Engineering Accreditation Commission, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective
for Evaluations During the 2000±2001 Accreditation Cycle, Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology, Inc., 111 Market Place, Suite 1050, Baltimore, MD 21202, March 18, 2000.
9. T. Philip McCreanor, Quantitatively assessing an outcome on designing and conducting experiments and analyzing data for ABET 2000, 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
Reno, NV, October 10±13, 2001.
10. Larry Shuman, Mary Besterfield-Sacre and E. Wolfe, Matching assessment methods to outcomes:
definitions and research questions, Proc. 2000 American Society of Engineering Education Annual
Conf., St. Louis, MO, Session 3530, June 18±21, 2000.
Assessing Engineering Internship Efficacy: Industry's Perception of Student Performance
11. S. Haag, EC2000 Longitudinal Study: A 3-Year Comparison (2000±2003), Unpublished manuscript, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University.
12. Engineering Education: Preparing for the Next Decade, A Study by the Curriculum Task Force,
College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Arizona State University, December, 1991.
Susan Haag is the Director of Evaluation and Assessment for the Ira A. Fulton School of
Engineering at ASU. She has conducted research on institutional reform and learner
persistence in STEM fields; technological advancements and cognitive applications to
improve educational access for the blind and visually impaired in engineering; e-learning
contexts; industry-university collaboration; and the recruitment and persistence of underrepresented populations. Dr Haag is currently collaborating with Computer Systems in
Engineering and Cognitive and Behavioral Psychology to investigate tactile cuing and
haptic coding systems to communicate information about an object. The research focuses
on developing educational strategies for the blind and to enable environment access for the
blind and visually impaired. Research targets high school and university students pursuing
engineering fields.
Eric Guilbeau's current administrative duties include responsibility for all aspects of
Arizona State University's undergraduate and graduate Bioengineering Program. He is a
member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Medical and Biological
Engineering, an Inaugural Fellow of the Biomedical Engineering Society and a Founding
Fellow of the Arizona Arts, Sciences, and Technology Academy. He is past President of the
Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) and currently chairs the BMES Accreditation
Activities Committee. Dr Guilbeau helped establish the National Council of Chairs of
Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering Programs and has served as its chair. He is a
past chair of the Academic Council of the American Institute of Medical and Biological
Engineering. His research experience includes over thirty years of productive activity in
biomedical engineering research. He has experience in administering grants from the NIH,
the American Heart Association, the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission, the
Whitaker Foundation, and others. He has published over seventy scholarly research
publications and served as the faculty advisor of twenty-four graduate students. His
research in biosensors resulted in a United State Patent for a novel method for sensing
blood glucose and a pending patent for a novel breath acetone sensor.
Whitney Goble has a Bachelors Degree in Sociology from Butler University (Indianapolis,
IN.). She serves as the Internship Coordinator in the Harrington Department of
Bioengineering at Arizona State University, sustaining the internship program's membership with the Biomedical Engineering Alliance for Industrial Internships. She spoke on the
attributes of a successful internship program at the 2004 Biomedical Engineering Society
(BMES) conference and has also published an article with the BMES Bulletin discussing the
job search process for Bioengineers. She works actively with students, faculty, and members
of the industrial community. Her primary interests are in student advising and counseling.
263